A twice-weekly syndicated newspaper column on California public affairs.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

BIG FOOD COMPANY BUCKS MAKE PROP. 37 UNPREDICTABLE

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2012, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“BIG FOOD COMPANY
BUCKS MAKE PROP. 37 UNPREDICTABLE”

There will be plenty of ballot
proposition battles in California this fall that look like food fights, with
figurative rotten tomatoes slung via all manner of media over issues from the
death penalty to taxes and car insurance, but only one initiative fight
revolves around actual food.

That’s Proposition 37, which pits most
of America’s largest food producers against the natural and organic foods
industry in a fight over whether all food in California should bear labels when
made from plants or animals whose genetic material has been changed, or engineered.

So far, this is a one-sided battle,
financially. Lined up against the initiative is a virtual who’s who of huge
food companies – and well-known ones that are not so huge. Among large donors
to the “no” side are Coca-Cola, DuPont, Monsanto, Del Monte, General Mills,
Kellogg, William Wrigley Jr. Co., J.M. Smucker, Morton Salt, McCormick spices,
Dow Chemical Co., Bayer, Hershey and Mars candies, Godiva Chocolate, Land
O’Lakes dairy products, Ocean Spray Cranberries, Sara Lee bakeries, Dole
fruits, Nestle USA and Campbell Soup, among others.

On the “yes” side, meanwhile, are
Nature’s Path Foods, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, a Chicago osteopath and a host
of small donors, including organic farms, of which the largest donor as of the
Aug. 15 reporting date was the Earthbound Organic Farm of San Juan Bautista.

Opponents – most
based in other states – poured more than $25 million into their war chest,
about 10 times what supporters raised. That much money arriving so early
indicates the final figure for spending on the “no” side will likely top $50
million. Even at that level, this won’t be the most expensive campaign of the
fall – that distinction will likely go to Proposition 32, a conservative effort
to politically emasculate organized labor in California – but it will surely
involve some of the most complex issues and claims.

Attempts at labeling bioengineered
foods have had mixed luck around America and the world, so the California
outcome is difficult to predict precisely, even though summertime polls showed
Proposition 37 with about 60 percent support before many campaign ads had
appeared.

Labeling of genetically engineered
products has been defeated by legislators in 19 states, but is required in more
than 40 countries including Japan, Australia and most of Europe.

Labeling
would remain far from universal here even if Proposition 37 passes; it exempts
restaurant foods, alcoholic beverages and foods made from animals fed or
injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered
themselves – cow’s milk and most meat are thus exempt, but soy milk would have
to be labeled.

Among the arguments against the measure is
a claim that enforcement will increase government costs. But the official
ballot pamphlet estimate indicates enforcement may not run more than a few
hundred thousand dollars, a pittance in state government terms.

Stores
would do most enforcement, with the proposed law requiring they get sworn
statements of purity from any suppliers not labeling their foods as genetically
engineered. Opponents say this could open the door to myriad nuisance lawsuits
against grocers and their suppliers, besides increasing costs to farmers and
food processors by a purported $1.2 billion yearly.

Backers’
main argument is that all food shoppers should have the right to know exactly
what’s in every product they buy. This will cost next to nothing, they say,
because manufacturers will have almost two years to phase in new labels or
change their products.

There
are, of course, competing scientific claims: The big food companies insist
there’s no harm in bioengineered foods. Bob Goldberg, professor of molecular,
cell and developmental biology at UCLA, writes on the opposition website that
“Foods made using modern biotechnology are thoroughly tested and proven safe.
Labels are misleading and unnecessary.”

The
unspoken but unmistakable implication of labels, opponents insist, is that
genetically engineered foods are unsafe.

Interestingly,
the single largest donor to the “no” side is Monsanto Co., which bills itself
as “a sustainable agriculture company” while selling many brands of seeds and
weed killers. In England in the 1990s, the same company backed labeling of the
precise sort it’s now fighting. One of its ads then said “Before you buy a
potato, or any other food, you may want to know whether it’s the product of
food biotechnology…We believe you should be aware of all the facts before
making a purchase.”

Voters
will have to sort through all of this and amid a one-sided barrage of campaign
commercials, as the “no” side vastly outspends backers, before making what
amounts to a scientific decision.

All
of which makes the outcome here highly unpredictable, despite Proposition 37’s
apparently wide early support.

-30-

Email Thomas
Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most
Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It,"
is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Thomas Elias writes the syndicated California Focus column, appearing twice weekly in 93 newspapers around California, with circulation over 2.2 million.
He has won numerous awards from organizations like the National Headliners Club, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the Greater Los Angeles Press Club, and the California Taxpayers Association. He has been nominated three times for the Pulitzer Prize in distinguished commentary.
Elias is the author of two books, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It" (now in its third edition; also published in Japanese and recently optioned for a television movie) and "The Simpson Trial in Black and White," co-authored with the late Dennis Schatzman.